Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #103
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, July 11 2000            Volume 01 : Number 103

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 23:31:48 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation  Details

Hello Roeland,

Sunday, July 09, 2000, 5:32:33 PM, you wrote:

> Actually, there was. That the request was denied is another
> story. But history insists that proposals were requested and an
> application was submitted, along with a payment. That they
> (IANA/Postel) changed their mind and handed back the application
> and payment, the very next day, is yet another issue. All other
> claims cannot deny this real event, value-judgements aside.

> Interpretations are yet another issue. But, please remember that
> interpretations are not the events themselves. The facts don't
> change.

Roeland, you don't seem to understand.  The intentions of Jon and IANA
have no bearing.  They had no authority.  It makes the entire issue of
what they intended moot.

However, the points Rick makes are valid as answers to you comment
above.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:31:53 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation  Details

At 05:18 PM 7/9/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:

> > from http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html
> >
> >         While there is much discussion of a process for establishing
> >         new registries and new top level domains taking place, no
> >         conclusions have been reached as yet.
> >
> >         Request sent to the IANA for a new top level domain will be
> >         filed with the many other requests.  There is some considerable
> >         possibility that this particular request will not be granted
> >         (in simple words -- don't plan on it).
>
>Spot on. There is some considerably possibility that this particular request
>will not be granted. As such, Jon acknowledged that there were, in
>fact, requests (and that they were solicited).
>
>To date, none of them have been approved nor rejected. They are, in
>a word, STILL PENDING.
>
>Thank you for pointing this out, you've actually been helpful.

QED.

And my original point is that there is a legally binding contractual 
obligation, via the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement" and "Contract Between 
ICANN and the United States Government for Performance of the IANA 
Function", for ICANN to receive and evaluate these requests.

What part of that didn't you understand, Rick?

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:20:00 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[5]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote  Participation  Details

Hello Simon,

Monday, July 10, 2000, 12:31:53 AM, you wrote:

> And my original point is that there is a legally binding contractual 
> obligation, via the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement" and "Contract Between 
> ICANN and the United States Government for Performance of the IANA 
> Function", for ICANN to receive and evaluate these requests.

If you believe that, then sue the USG and ICANN now, because they will
not pay any attention to those "requests."  Rightfully so.

> What part of that didn't you understand, Rick?

I think he understood perfectly.  Will you take ICANN and the USG to
court, Simon?   Your claim will be laughed out.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:37:32 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation  Details

On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 12:31:53AM -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 05:18 PM 7/9/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> > > from http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html
> > >
> > >         While there is much discussion of a process for establishing
> > >         new registries and new top level domains taking place, no
> > >         conclusions have been reached as yet.
> > >
> > >         Request sent to the IANA for a new top level domain will be
> > >         filed with the many other requests.  There is some considerable
> > >         possibility that this particular request will not be granted
> > >         (in simple words -- don't plan on it).
> >
> >Spot on. There is some considerably possibility that this particular request
> >will not be granted. As such, Jon acknowledged that there were, in
> >fact, requests (and that they were solicited).
> >
> >To date, none of them have been approved nor rejected. They are, in
> >a word, STILL PENDING.
> >
> >Thank you for pointing this out, you've actually been helpful.
> 
> QED.
> 
> And my original point is that there is a legally binding contractual 
> obligation, via the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement" and "Contract Between 
> ICANN and the United States Government for Performance of the IANA 
> Function", for ICANN to receive and evaluate these requests.

My guess as to ICANN's evaluation: 

Those requests are a meaningless hodgepodge that were made with an
explicit admonition that they should not be planned on.  The "don't plan
on it" clause is in fact a straightforward denial of any "pioneer
preference", and in fact, the straightforward interpretation of that
clause is "there is no point in making an application now", and many
people read it that way when it was publicized. 

The fact that some fools actually DID make plans based on those
requests, dispite the clear COMMAND not to, is not our problem, and it
should not prejudice applications from organizations that read the
clause with its obvious interpretation. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:36:27 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation   Details

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

I won't comment on the rest of the arguments; I don't know enough.
But this demands comment:

> Jon could ask for whatever he wanted, he had no authority.  Bottom
> line, its been proven by history, end of story.

Something is getting seriously muddled here. Of course Postel had
the authority. He ran IANA, and had near-universal respect, earned
by years of excellent work.

It is an open question at this point whether ICANN is ever going
to earn anything like that level of respect.

Methinks they could make a good start with some obvious moves.

     Create a consituency for individual domain owners.
       Ideally, it should have more votes or influence than either
       gov't or industry.

     Get some new TLDs into service quickly.
       Ideally, at least a dozen this year.

     Drop the silly notion of DNS enforcing trademark claims.
  
     Make it abundantly clear that NSI and other contractors
       who may run some services do not own those services or
       any of the related data.

In general, make it clear that ICANN sees its role as running
a public service for the net.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:26:29 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation  Details

At 07:37 AM 7/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 12:31:53AM -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
> > At 05:18 PM 7/9/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >
> > > > from http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html
> > > >
> > > >         While there is much discussion of a process for establishing
> > > >         new registries and new top level domains taking place, no
> > > >         conclusions have been reached as yet.
> > > >
> > > >         Request sent to the IANA for a new top level domain will be
> > > >         filed with the many other requests.  There is some considerable
> > > >         possibility that this particular request will not be granted
> > > >         (in simple words -- don't plan on it).
> > >
> > >Spot on. There is some considerably possibility that this particular 
> request
> > >will not be granted. As such, Jon acknowledged that there were, in
> > >fact, requests (and that they were solicited).
> > >
> > >To date, none of them have been approved nor rejected. They are, in
> > >a word, STILL PENDING.
> > >
> > >Thank you for pointing this out, you've actually been helpful.
> >
> > QED.
> >
> > And my original point is that there is a legally binding contractual
> > obligation, via the "USC/ICANN Transition Agreement" and "Contract Between
> > ICANN and the United States Government for Performance of the IANA
> > Function", for ICANN to receive and evaluate these requests.
>
>My guess as to ICANN's evaluation:

Everyone is guessing. Why not let ICANN say something for a change?

>Those requests are a meaningless hodgepodge that were made with an
>explicit admonition that they should not be planned on.  The "don't plan
>on it" clause is in fact a straightforward denial of any "pioneer
>preference", and in fact, the straightforward interpretation of that
>clause is "there is no point in making an application now", and many
>people read it that way when it was publicized.

That's one misinformed opinion, and contrary to conversations I've had with 
IANA. Not one application has been denied. Not one has been approved 
either. They were submitted to the IAHC and ignored.

Please show documentary evidence of the specific application denials to 
back up your fictitious claim.

>The fact that some fools actually DID make plans based on those
>requests, dispite the clear COMMAND not to, is not our problem,

The instructions from IANA were explicit. SET UP AND RUN A REGISTRY. Legal 
disclaimers, of the type between registry and consumer, were provided by 
IANA to all prospective registries to limit their liability in following 
IANA's instructions. Criteria for evaluation were provided by IANA, which 
included operational readiness. There were even meetings at IANA to 
encourage and find consensus for "draft Postel". IANA did just about 
everything to encourage the new registries except finance AlterNIC.

Jon Postel then explicitly told the IAHC "Do what the "postel draft" says 
to do.". He was ignored.
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00527.html

>and it
>should not prejudice applications from organizations that read the
>clause with its obvious interpretation.

So you are advocating that it's OK to prejudice the pioneer work, in spite 
of clear instructions to the contrary?

If anyone on the list wonders why the past is once again being rehashed, 
it's simple. History will repeat itself over and over again until the 
mistakes of the past are rectified.

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:37:52 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation   Details

Hello Sandy,

Monday, July 10, 2000, 9:36:27 AM, you wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

> I won't comment on the rest of the arguments; I don't know enough.
> But this demands comment:

You don't know enough to comment on this one either, let me show you
why.

>> Jon could ask for whatever he wanted, he had no authority.  Bottom
>> line, its been proven by history, end of story.

> Something is getting seriously muddled here. Of course Postel had
> the authority. He ran IANA, and had near-universal respect, earned
> by years of excellent work.

IANA had no authority to add new gTLDs.  None.  Nowhere did it ever
received that authority from the only agency authorized to give it to
them, NSF.  The NSF directive to NSI to not add any new gTLDs even if
IANA requests it shows pretty clearly where the authority was, and
also that IANA and Dr. Postel did not have that authority.  No
document or agreement specifically gives him that power.

He tried to add new gTLDs with the IAHC/gTLD-MoU and failed.  Despite
promises he and others made, those new TLDs did not get added at any
of the many different times he promised they would.

> It is an open question at this point whether ICANN is ever going
> to earn anything like that level of respect.

That may be (I agree) but that doesn't mean that Postel had this
authority.  ICANN doesn't even really have this authority, only the
NTIA does at the moment, but they will most likely follow ICANN's
decision and approve it.

> Methinks they could make a good start with some obvious moves.

>      Create a consituency for individual domain owners.
>        Ideally, it should have more votes or influence than either
>        gov't or industry.

Agreed.

>      Get some new TLDs into service quickly.
>        Ideally, at least a dozen this year.

Won't happen.  Consider us lucky if we get between 1 and 3.

>      Drop the silly notion of DNS enforcing trademark claims.

Never happen.  ICANN is owned by these special interests.

>      Make it abundantly clear that NSI and other contractors
>        who may run some services do not own those services or
>        any of the related data.

Again, never happen.  The data you mean is the database of their
customers, and any business in this world will tell you they own that
data.

> In general, make it clear that ICANN sees its role as running
> a public service for the net.

The whole point of ICANN, Sandy was that it was removing PUBLIC
management, and making it a private industry managed function.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:49:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Agenda - additional points

Joop,

>Respectfully disagree, Roberto.
>This issue has been discussed and this list has seen all the arguments 
(and
>the ad hominems) ad nauseam.
>I would say: let's not procrastinate on this issue any further and take
 it
>to a vote a.s.a.p.
>

I would love to take it to a vote, but to vote on it we need a motion, a
 second, and the reasonable time to discuss it.
The fact is that in less than 24H I will be on a plane to Yokohama.

What is wrong with my proposal to discuss the issue in Yokohama, where 
there's a specific point on the agenda, maybe take a consensus poll at 
the GA, and trim the proposal on the list to put it down in its 
definitive forn to NC?

About the discussion on this list, I confess I did not see much except 
the exchange of arguments (and ad nominem) on the IDNO as the one and 
only representative proposal for the Individual DN Holders Constituency,
 but no effort whatsoever to broaden the consensus, to try to modify the
 original proposal to compromise on different positions, in one word, to
 progress.
Without effort of this type, the only possible vote is pro or against 
Joop. While this can be of some interest to a short number of 
personalities in this list, it is absolutely useless to make the cause 
of the Individual DN Holders progress, because whatever the result of 
the vote in the GA it is obvious to me that the proposal will not pass 
the NC. And this not because the NC are bad guys, but because the 
proposal of IDNO as is (or was) is clearly not a consensus proposal.

The issue is then: how to move towards a consensus proposal? Either we 
find out a way to do it, or we can forget about the whole issue.

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:59:48 -0700
From: "JB" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation   Details

I'm just coming to this discussion, but since it is open, I'll contribute My
2 Cents.

Sandy Harris has very eloquently hit the nail on the head. I've reading the
icann and dnso websites and listening here for a week and it is obvious that
self interest and greed has clouded the issues.

It's time to stop mucking around and get on with the business of serving the
net and it's citizens. ICANN will NEVER be able to solve/prevent trademark
disputes.

Getting new TLD's into cirrculation and giving individual domain owners a
say in the process should have been done two years ago.

Sincerly,

John Burden

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Sandy
Harris
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:36 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation
Details

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

I won't comment on the rest of the arguments; I don't know enough.
But this demands comment:

> Jon could ask for whatever he wanted, he had no authority.  Bottom
> line, its been proven by history, end of story.

Something is getting seriously muddled here. Of course Postel had
the authority. He ran IANA, and had near-universal respect, earned
by years of excellent work.

It is an open question at this point whether ICANN is ever going
to earn anything like that level of respect.

Methinks they could make a good start with some obvious moves.

     Create a consituency for individual domain owners.
       Ideally, it should have more votes or influence than either
       gov't or industry.

     Get some new TLDs into service quickly.
       Ideally, at least a dozen this year.

     Drop the silly notion of DNS enforcing trademark claims.

     Make it abundantly clear that NSI and other contractors
       who may run some services do not own those services or
       any of the related data.

In general, make it clear that ICANN sees its role as running
a public service for the net.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:23:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details

Simon,

We have an agenda item covering the wide asubject of the introduction of
 new TLDs.

If you allow me to drop my GA-Chair hat, and give you my personal 
opinions:
- - ICANN will take into account the existence of an "old" proposal to 
IANA as one of the criteria of choice, and not the most important 
(otherwise it would have been mentioned in the document to be commented 
on);
- - I would suggest to mention the existence of prior application to IANA 
for a specific TLD when submitting the Expression of Interest (according
 to the procedure).

Time has changed, and to act as if we were still in the past with the 
IANA/Postel situation, pre-White Paper, pre-international debate, pre-
creation of ICANN, will have as only effect to limit the time to debate 
other aspects of the issue where we may have a chance to influence 
ICANN. In other words, a loss of time and opportunities.

But, wearing again my GA-Chair hat, you are welcome to discuss the old 
and the new applications under the broad agenda item "new GTLDs".

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:46:05 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation Details

At 09:23 PM 7/10/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Simon,
>
>We have an agenda item covering the wide asubject of the introduction of
>  new TLDs.
>
>If you allow me to drop my GA-Chair hat, and give you my personal
>opinions:
>- ICANN will take into account the existence of an "old" proposal to
>IANA as one of the criteria of choice, and not the most important
>(otherwise it would have been mentioned in the document to be commented
>on);

That was why I asked the question, because I didn't see it mentioned anywhere.

>- I would suggest to mention the existence of prior application to IANA
>for a specific TLD when submitting the Expression of Interest (according
>  to the procedure).

http://www.icann.org/yokohama/EOI5.htm

>Time has changed, and to act as if we were still in the past with the
>IANA/Postel situation, pre-White Paper, pre-international debate, pre-
>creation of ICANN, will have as only effect to limit the time to debate
>other aspects of the issue where we may have a chance to influence
>ICANN. In other words, a loss of time and opportunities.

I understand. I don't really want to be rehashing this either. But denying 
the past is to repeat the same mistakes over again.

>But, wearing again my GA-Chair hat, you are welcome to discuss the old
>and the new applications under the broad agenda item "new GTLDs".

Thanks!

FYI, it's amazing how close "GA-Chair" and "gotcha" sound if you don't 
pronounce the G & A separately. Pun intended. ;)

Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

- --
It's a feature not a bug...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 100 11:38:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email-masked] (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Yokohama Remote Participation   Details

> 
> > You can apply for ownership of a tollbridge in New York, that doesn't
> > make your application have any basis in reality.  
> 
> When the New York Tollbridge Authority asks for such applications
> and then publishes the list of same, it does make the applications have
> a basis in reality. 
> 
> > Much like your self
> > claimed TLDs (of which nearly all do not have, and have never had,
> > live registries, so they are nothing more than undeveloped self
> > claimed TLDs without any real authority or sanction).
> 
> Image Online Design has had a live registry since its application. Do
> you then consider us a special case?
> 
> Christopher
> 

Yes and so does ADNS. If you look at Postel's application list, ADNS is
has the SECOND and THIRD request on the list of all applications for 
TLDs - I think we even beat out Chris (though I'm not sure about that).

Makes no difference, USA, EARTH and Z are legally ours and if touched,
the attempted thief (or theves) will get their legal comeuppance.

John
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #103
************************